Robert Wright at The Atlantic riffs off that and points to the assassinations and bombings occurring inside Iran, the existing sanctions, threatened sanctions, and the American refusal to even consider diplomacy as evidence that the United States is now committed to provoking a war with Iran.

I think at this point there's a good chance that the United States has already committed to to a hot war with Iran, and that at least a faction of the Iranian government is ready to oblige them.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

Interestingly, I take the opposite conclusions from the information he collects in the article. While Iran's military is not an offensive threat, they are well situated to close the Straits of Hormuz, even to a U.S. carrier group (one of three in the region now). A land invasion is (or at least should be) out of the question for the United States, so any conflict would be fought primarily at sea and in the air.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

(Canada's) Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered a scathing rebuke of Iran on Thursday ... saying the regime in Tehran is the greatest threat to global security.

"Iran is a very serious threat to international peace and security. In my judgment, it is the world's most serious threat to international peace and security," Harper said Thursday in an interview with Calgary radio station CHQR.

So... I guess if the F-35 ever gets produced, you'll have Canadian backup.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

The word "cronies" [is] practically the free square on Libertarian Bingo. (Except there is no free square on Libertarian Bingo, because that would be a handout.)

And note that Iran, of all the players involved, is the only one that hasn't invaded anyone in many decades. Arguably, if you count the Islamic Revolution as the formation of a 'new' Iran, this Iran has never invaded anyone.

The real problem is that Iran has oil, and they are not subservient to the United States.

And note that Iran, of all the players involved, is the only one that hasn't invaded anyone in many decades. Arguably, if you count the Islamic Revolution as the formation of a 'new' Iran, this Iran has never invaded anyone.

The real problem is that Iran has oil, and they are not subservient to the United States.

That, and the insistence of some in that country that Israel needs to be "wiped from the face of the earth".

Other than that, they're downright wonderful.

“When I discovered a new plant, I sat down beside it for a minute or a day, to make its
acquaintance and hear what it had to tell.” -- John Muir

That, and the insistence of some in that country that Israel needs to be "wiped from the face of the earth".

Other than that, they're downright wonderful.

The person who supposedly said that doesn't even control Iran's military so it would be exceptionally hard, if not outright impossible, for him to make that happen. The person who does control Iran's military has only said that Iran would (rightly) retaliate if attacked by Israel or America.

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.

And note that Iran, of all the players involved, is the only one that hasn't invaded anyone in many decades. Arguably, if you count the Islamic Revolution as the formation of a 'new' Iran, this Iran has never invaded anyone.

The real problem is that Iran has oil, and they are not subservient to the United States.

And note that Iran, of all the players involved, is the only one that hasn't invaded anyone in many decades. Arguably, if you count the Islamic Revolution as the formation of a 'new' Iran, this Iran has never invaded anyone.

The real problem is that Iran has oil, and they are not subservient to the United States.

Yeah, but we're still holding a grudge for Thermopylae.

I think Americans are starting to get very sick of war. But then most of us are so far removed from the reality of being at war that it might not make a difference.

A Cigar, much like Scotch and Monogamy, is an acquired taste.

McChuck wrote:

I'd recommend the Scottish martial art known as f*ck You. It's mostly just head butting and then kicking people when they're on the ground.

Iran's foreign ministry on Saturday labeled the U.S. Navy's rescue of 13 Iranians from pirates who had hijacked a fishing vessel a "humanitarian and positive" act.

"We consider the actions of the U.S. forces in saving the lives of Iranian seamen to be a humanitarian and positive act and we welcome such behavior. We think all nations should display such behavior," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told broadcaster al Alam.

Iran's foreign ministry on Saturday labeled the U.S. Navy's rescue of 13 Iranians from pirates who had hijacked a fishing vessel a "humanitarian and positive" act.

"We consider the actions of the U.S. forces in saving the lives of Iranian seamen to be a humanitarian and positive act and we welcome such behavior. We think all nations should display such behavior," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told broadcaster al Alam.

That, and the insistence of some in that country that Israel needs to be "wiped from the face of the earth".

That was a mistranslation, perhaps deliberate. Arabic doesn't map directly to English, but the essence of what he said was that Israel would pass from the Earth in the fullness of time. It wasn't so much a call to action as an observation.

Of course, that's not what you heard in the corporate media. There must be A Big Threat at all times, or you won't buy papers and/or watch the TV, and you won't support wars.

And the reason for that isn't because we're afraid of them attacking Israel -- Israel is armed to the teeth, and would turn Iran into glass in minutes. It's because it forever puts that oil out of the reach of our conventional military. And it is not acceptable for a bunch of Middle Easterners to steal our oil right out from under their own feet.

Make no mistake, Iran is a terrible place, but from the perspective of most of the world, America is much more dangerous.

I have trouble believing our top brass would allow a hot war with Iran right now. The numbers just don't crunch, especially if they want to wrap it up before Iran gets a nuke. You might say they don't get to make that call, but our civilian government would be wise to listen to their advice on such matters. It is their job, after all.

Speaking of civilians, I don't think Obama wants a war with Iran. Sec. of State Clinton rattled that saber for a while, then vanished off the face of the earth. The same thing happened under the Bush administration, when Powell started to clash with the party line. They were both muzzled. That indicates to me that the CiC does not want that particular saber rattled.

Which makes a whole lot of sense, because war is terrible, even if (and I'm not saying it is) it's the right thing to do.

Bear wrote:

Malor wrote:

And note that Iran, of all the players involved, is the only one that hasn't invaded anyone in many decades. Arguably, if you count the Islamic Revolution as the formation of a 'new' Iran, this Iran has never invaded anyone.

The real problem is that Iran has oil, and they are not subservient to the United States.

That, and the insistence of some in that country that Israel needs to be "wiped from the face of the earth".

Other than that, they're downright wonderful.

If you want to play the "some in that country" card, we've got a lot of nutcases in our country, too, and what ever happened to our core beliefs that everyone, everywhere, has the right to express an opinion, no matter how stupid or violent that opinion may be?

I think that Malor has it right. Iran had a moderate, largely secular government. We wouldn't support it because it didn't want to follow our orders, and it was overthrown. Now we have a fundamentalist theocracy. I'm not saying we get to decide which government another nation will have, but we can definitely support opposition movements.

If you want to play the "some in that country" card, we've got a lot of nutcases in our country, too, and what ever happened to our core beliefs that everyone, everywhere, has the right to express an opinion, no matter how stupid or violent that opinion may be?

SANTORUM: I would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly, talk about this. Why? Because I want to make sure that Iran knows that when I say that Iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually effectuate policies that make that happen. This president has not done that. He has opposed tough sanctions on Iran, on their oil program. Why? Because he's concerned about this--the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. I would say to every foreign scientist that’s going to Iran to help them with their program,’You will be treated as an enemy combatant like an Al Qaeda member,’ and finally I would be working openly with the state of Israel and I would be saying to the Iranians; ‘You need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.’

GREGORY: You would lay out a red line and if they pass it, air strikes?

SANTORUM: Iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.

MR. GREGORY: Well, two previous presidents have said that. You would order airstrikes if it
became clear that they were going to...

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Yes. That's, that's the plan. I mean, you can't go out and say--this is,
this is the problem with this administration, you can't go out and say this is what I'm for and then
do nothing. You become a paper tiger and people don't respect our country and our allies can't
trust us. That's the problem with this administration.

A presidential hopeful has made a campaign promise to go to war with Iran. And note, Mr. Gregory never asks him if degrading their nuclear facilities constitutes an act of war (which it is), and if he's prepared to violate the Constitution and go to war without Congress's approval (which he would).

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Let them eat gay wedding cake.

Reaper81 wrote:

I am half-gay on my mother's side but I ethnically self-identify as "closeted lumber mill worker."

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — An Iranian court has convicted an American man of working for the CIA and sentenced him to death, state radio reported Monday, in a case adding to the accelerating tension between the United States and Iran.

Speaking of civilians, I don't think Obama wants a war with Iran. Sec. of State Clinton rattled that saber for a while, then vanished off the face of the earth. The same thing happened under the Bush administration, when Powell started to clash with the party line. They were both muzzled. That indicates to me that the CiC does not want that particular saber rattled.

Which makes a whole lot of sense, because war is terrible, even if (and I'm not saying it is) it's the right thing to do.

It might make sense, if we were not taking the steps we are. Imagine if another country tried to place oil export sanctions on the United States, enforced by a blockade. We would immediately, and rightly, interpret that as an act of war. The Obama admistration has stopped talking and started acting, which to me indicates that the decision has already been made.

I think that Malor has it right. Iran had a moderate, largely secular government. We wouldn't support it because it didn't want to follow our orders, and it was overthrownthe United States overthrew it and inserted a vicious, violent puppet dictatorship. Now we have a fundamentalist theocracy. I'm not saying we get to decide which government another nation will have, but we can definitely support opposition movements.

FTFY. Our assumption that we can indeed decide which government another nation will have is one of the primary causes of our current problems with Iran. Supporting opposition movements simply strengthens their regime and maintains our status as the enemy of Iranian self-determination.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

The more I read about the whole Hekmati situation, the more I have to admit that the Iranian allegations seem entirely plausible. If he really was just visiting his sick grandmother, he's got to be the silliest, most naive person on the planet. Even that strains credulity.

“Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations,” said Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, which is based in Bahrain. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

So you'll be letting those Iranian oil ships through to sell their product, right? The double standard is palpable.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

“Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations,” said Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, which is based in Bahrain. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

So you'll be letting those Iranian oil ships through to sell their product, right? The double standard is palpable.

I think we should just dispense with the whole pretense of the impartiality of international law. We have the only blue water navy. As a result, we are the only nation allowed to park aircraft carriers (with enough nuclear weapons to wipe out life on half the planet) within sight of another country's coast with impunity. Admitting such may make us a bully, but at least it eliminates the piercing irony.

“Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations,” said Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, which is based in Bahrain. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

So you'll be letting those Iranian oil ships through to sell their product, right? The double standard is palpable.

I think we should just dispense with the whole pretense of the impartiality of international law. We have the only blue water navy. As a result, we are the only nation allowed to park aircraft carriers (with enough nuclear weapons to wipe out life on half the planet) within sight of another country's coast with impunity. Admitting such may make us a bully, but at least it eliminates the piercing irony.

Just an FYI but I'm pretty sure aircraft carriers have not carried a nuclear arsenal for quite awhile.

I asked my wife the same thing last night. She replied with "stop being a moron and wash the damned dishes" -- Paleocon asking his wife about zombies

Boomers operate independently. Carrier groups have at least one attack class sub whose job it is find and kill other subs before they can get close to the carrier.

Either way the Persian Gulf is the worst place on the planet for our blue water navy. It's shallow, narrow, and surrounded by land. That's not a good set up for a carrier group that was purposely built to detect and intercept attacking Soviet aircraft hundreds of miles away in the open ocean. It wasn't designed to be a big ass target that operates within range of land-based missiles.

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.

Boomers operate independently. Carrier groups have at least one attack class sub whose job it is find and kill other subs before they can get close to the carrier.

Either way the Persian Gulf is the worst place on the planet for our blue water navy. It's shallow, narrow, and surrounded by land. That's not a good set up for a carrier group that was purposely built to detect and intercept attacking Soviet aircraft hundreds of miles away in the open ocean. It wasn't designed to be a big ass target that operates within range of land-based missiles.

Not to mention, once boomers deploy their job is to disappear. That's much harder to do and MUCH more dangerous in shallow waters. Very few people other than a handful on the ship and land have any idea where they are but they're not getting anywhere near the Persian Gulf. Besides, they wouldn't need to, they are fully capable of hitting most of the gulf from the Atlantic.

We have 18 Ohio class subs, most if not all carry Trident missiles which have a range of 4,000+ miles. Safe to say, the SSBN's are running somewhere deep and quiet.

“When I discovered a new plant, I sat down beside it for a minute or a day, to make its
acquaintance and hear what it had to tell.” -- John Muir

“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

So despite being permitted to pursue nuclear energy under the non-proliferation agreement, and with no evidence that the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon, we'll still attack them because of what they aren't doing. Treaties ... what are they good for anyway.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

So despite being permitted to pursue nuclear energy under the non-proliferation agreement, and with no evidence that the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon, we'll still attack them. Treaties ... what are they good for anyway.

Uncle Vlad wrote:

Treaties are like pie crusts. Made to be broken

Seriously, though. Treaties have asymmetric value. For the powerful, it is a device to which one can hold the weak to account. For the weak, it is a cause with which they can appeal to an indifferent audience. They are really only of symmetric value between equals.